115 comments:

"Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats."

More PJ, "And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans."

I think that's why DEMs are so quick to paint military personnel with the PTSD brush. They tend to have a 'they must be crazy, cause if we were in their shoes, we'd be running a military dictatorship, already' mentality.

mesquito took my point, but it's one of the two money quotes of the piece and oh, boy, does he nail it.

Nobody is hurting, and going to get hurt, like the Demos' core constituencies - blacks, Hispanics, single mothers - because, at best, we've got a year of economic stagnation facing us and, if we're not that lucky, another market swoon if a lot of people, George Soros included, are right.

The other big takeaway, of course, is, "Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart.". And that's always been the real bottom line for the Lefties, that's what those super-majorities were supposed to hand them - for a generation, maybe forever. But an incompetent manager handed responsibility to implement that power to a pack of clumsy, self-interested straw bosses who forgot on whose back that power was gained. They paid back the big money crowd, but not the ones whose votes they'll need.

They "care" but it's malignant caring. Democrats pretend to help these people to get their votes so they can stay in power and in control of others lives. Democrats are very careful to be sure that their programs don't allow anyone to gain true independence because they might not get their votes.

It's called the Mcguffin. The McGuffin is essentially something that the entire story is built around and yet has no real relevance (that definition is from a google search). In the healthcare debate the Mcguffin is the Democrats concern for the uninsured. They don't care about the uninsured. If they did, we could have found some way to get just the uninsured health insurance. But the Democrats took over the whole shebang because they believe people will become dependent on government and thus on them and keep returning them to power. It was a power grab. With the Democrats, you always have to look for the Mcguffin.

The respect for individual human life and freedom to own and use their property is totally MIA in the latest Democrat Party. Now if we can convince the RINOs that being half that bad is OK, and demand full respect of our lives and our property we will have done some Tea Party work.

That's what they do. They hate. So much so, in fact, that that's what they are. They are haters.

Again and again, time after time, they demonstrate their utter contempt and disregard for all of mankind.

Even when you give them all the power that they lust for -- power they covet and seek so that they can destroy their opponents and control those they claim to care for, for whom they have a particular loathing -- they still rage and resent and spew anger and rancor. Go to any Dem city, and far from a paradise of brotherly harmony, you will find them treating each other like they are in a cage-fight match.

Their hate consumes them. It defines what they do, it defines who they are.

All Democrats are not 100% gut haters. You may feel that characterizes their leadership and you may marshall many examples, but I know too many Democrats who are lovely and who are not motivated by hate. To them being a Democrat is a matter of choosing one of two parties and they feel quite strongly that one party as presented matches their own values much more closely than the other. Values of goodness and fairness and equality of opportunity, some sense of social equity and balance between the machinations gigantic corporations that run roughshod and the doings of private individuals who they see are often mowed down.

If you want to fix poverty, crime, illiteracy, and conflicts between people and groups, the root cause solution is to build families that love, and that nurture and care for children so that as adults they have peace in their own hearts and know how to look out for and take care of others and to share.

The left says they want to fix the above problems, but then they advocate "non judgmental" marriage and family policies that break up homes and make the root cause solution near impossible.

Then to plaster over the hole of their abject failure, the left tries to convince us that a family is any arrangement of any adults with anyone's kids, as long as they are "caring people."

(Note how often it is that the selfish divorcee of one or two previous failed marriages now magically becomes the caring adult of a new leftist "family group."

I agree that an inability to achieve a perfect family should not be reason to not try to create a good caring group.

But let's not pretend that what the left creates and allows in our impoverished communities is either a perfect family or a caring group.

If they really cared, they wouldn't advocate the anything goes family, which at it's best must be labeled experimental, and at its worst is the source of most of our most expensive social ills.

You think I should focus on my own damn family?

I will, if your wounded-from-home and therefore socially dis-attached kid focuses on another person to stickup or another house to rob.

I've been a fan of PJ's since he was at Ramparts and Scanlon's back in the 60's. He was pretty left wing at the time but sure could write. (He still can)I followed him at National Lampoon and follow him now wherever I can. I have a number of his books. Including, recently, a book with a number of articles on cars that he wrote for Car & Driver. Also, a book on Adam Smith is pretty good stuff. He is not only a good writer, he is a diverse writer.

Don't make the mistake of thinking he is a conservative. He is most definitely not. He himself will tell you that he is a liberal. A classical liberal or even libertarian if you like, but a liberal in the etymologically correct sense of the word, a "free man" See both Hayek, Von Mises, Milton Friedman, Rothbard and others for more on this.

I do think that those of us that are conservative to show a little more love to our more liberal commenters. I mean I like a little argument as much as the next guy. But sometimes we let it get out of hand.

Ritmo doesn't want to admit that somehow non-black cultures have figured out a way to live decently & cleanly and blacks continue to live in crime-ridden slums. Yeah voting Democrat for 45 years is really workin' for ya.

It takes not being a wussy to live in some parts of them, but I find many of them to be wonderful places, and nicer to live in than most suburbs. Their inhabitants have no choice but to build stronger, more organized connections with each other, place more emphasis on functional infrastructure and have deeper understandings of what matters to each other.

Rephrased - it takes turning off your brain to go live in a crime-ridden slum. No wonder families are leaving the remaining "good cities" in droves. All that will be left are gangs, druggie and a few hipster idiots.

Ritmo doesn't want to admit that somehow non-black cultures have figured out a way to live decently & cleanly and blacks continue to live in crime-ridden slums. Yeah voting Democrat for 45 years is really workin' for ya.

There you go, Alex. There's the loving kindness. I knew you could spew it.

To echo Chip, most of the liberals I know are not evil in the way Obama, Pelosi and Reid are evil. They are merely weak-minded and have never thought through what liberal policies wreak on society. They want to help people in need, but fail to understand that institutionalized social welfare deprives its recipients of a sense of self worth. On the other hand, evil liberals like Obama, Pelosi and Reid know that recipients of social welfare become habituated to the government's largesse and will never vote to decrease the power of the state. It's as simple as that.

Rephrased - it takes turning off your brain to go live in a crime-ridden slum. No wonder families are leaving the remaining "good cities" in droves. All that will be left are gangs, druggie and a few hipster idiots.

How's that rural-suburban methamphetamine problem working out for you, Alex?

Gangs are fully entrenched in many suburban communities across the nation; they began to expand from urban areas into suburban communities during the 1970s, continued their expansion in the 1980s, and launched into full-scale migration during the 1990s.

That reminds me, Ritmo's hatred has so consumed him that he spends his days on Althouse spiking any good-faith conversation between liberals and conservatives -

it's worth reposting a Ritmo comment from one earlier last week, displaying what he's up to at Althouse, and why he comments here:

Ritmo Brasileiro said: "It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy. Getting you shit-eaters to complain about the taste after opening your mouths wide and saying "Ahhhh..." to every bad idea under the sun is very satisfying, I must admit."- 10/16/10 10:28 AM

To echo Chip, most of the liberals I know are not evil in the way Obama, Pelosi and Reid are evil. They are merely weak-minded and have never thought through what liberal policies wreak on society.

THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS.

My wife is a doctoral student, so I wind up talking to highly educated relatively young liberals on a pretty regular basis.

I can't count how many times I've heard them regurgitate some piece of Leftist cant, only to be genuinely shocked when I explain how that policy has been tried before and what the results of that policy was/is. Or about the laws of unintended consequences. Or about how there's a difference between what the Democratic Party SAYS is good for working class people and what is ACTUALLY good for working class people. Or about party machine politics.

They want to help people, and they've been told that those kind of people register and vote for Democrats. I've opened the eyes of more than a couple of them, and I'm pleased to say that I regularly hear from them about how outraged they are about this or that political story now that they understand what actually underlies the headlines.

It's not the average rank-and-file Democrat that's the problem. Most of them come around easily enough if you're patient enough to get through the years of BS that they've been indoctrinated with all their lives.

Shitmo, you do have the mind of a criminal. Have you ever been incarcerated?

I will now provide you with the perfect material for your next jerk off, jackass.

The complete quote:

An absolutely hilariously ridiculous discussion.

So, after Muslims sneak a dirty bomb into Manhattan and detonate it, will Shithead Ritmo declare that the real problem is the potential Islamophobia the act might produce.

You bet he will. Ritmo, you are the stupidest cunt on the planet. Suicidally stupid. This Bigot-omania of yours if a hilariously stupid. You are one stupid fucking cunt.

I can't wait for the day that cunts like you are beaten in the street. It's going to happen. The tolerance for your stupidity will evaporate in the wake of a dirty bomb attack on Manhattan. I'll be cheering on the sidelines while the crowd beats you, if I'm still alive.

Ritmo...Perhaps the best way to see the Conservatives and the RINOs and the Democrats many weaknesses is that they all arise from the "Love of Money". Using money is often a replacement for good social relationships and also for good Family relationships. Therefore, having money often harms ones character, and seeking money's power will easily justify many thefts and murders among all 3 of them. Scripture is often misquoted but it literally says that "The Love of money is A root of all evils". Every different evil can grow up where the love of money rules and not the love of God. Apply that principle, and we are back into depending for protection on a balanced system of Repubs and Dems each exposing the other's evils. But disaster happens when the lure of money causes them both to work together to split the loot. Such a cooperative effort is exactly what the great AGW Hoax was all about.

That's what you said, Squealing Thomas. You don't get to cheer on the sidelines of your fantasy flash-mob without the dirty bomb attack you hope for. You can call it a minor prop in your daydream sequence, but it's a necessary condition. Without it, you don't get the other violence.

Do you find it embarrassing that you would fantasize about and wish for a terror attack just so that you could find an excuse for having violence inflicted on other people?

That's what you said, Squealing Thomas. You don't get to cheer on the sidelines of your fantasy flash-mob without the dirty bomb attack you hope for. You can call it a minor prop in your daydream sequence, but it's a necessary condition. Without it, you don't get the other violence.

Do you find it embarrassing that you would fantasize about and wish for a terror attack just so that you could find an excuse for having violence inflicted on other people?

Any psychiatrist can see how unhinged you are.

And here's your quote, AGAIN:

I can't wait for the day... of a dirty bomb attack on Manhattan. I'll be cheering on the sidelines

Will you two shut the hell up? Really. I don't expect anything of "shouting thomas" but I do know that you're capable of rationality, Ritmo. Therefore, can you please do the rest of us a favor and stop baiting him? Jeez...

Shouting Thomas...Project much? We all can learn from another's thoughts. And since you cannot actually hurt Ritmo or anyone else on a Blog thread, why not allow for honest disagreements with others? And when you let another commenter know how angry they have made you, that tells them that they have your number. Arguing from another point of view is a better come back than name calling.

Red staters are more likely to get married and married young - the churchy influence. Blue staters are more likely to cohabitate if they are not the marrying kind and go through mulitiple relationships. Then there's the racial question - I'm sure you don't want to go there, right?

Nevada and DC I'm taking off the boards as too atypical in too many ways to average in at all.

Just as an example, the same page you cite has full on 50.4% of DC men never marrying at all and 46.2 percent of DC women not marrying.

Why are you even bothering with such ass stupid, easily shot down, make them say what you want them to say whether red or blue statistics anyway?

Thanks for pulling this thread back together, guys. Apologies for allowing myself to get sidetracked.

Jamboree, why is marrying too young to know what you want and then divorcing preferable to never marrying?

Nevada is atypical. I thank you for being fair-minded enough to point that out. And I'm not afraid to address racial disparities. I think that's probably a more complex issue, and you're right that it might be better to avoid it just to stay topical. But I thank you for responding courteously and intelligently.

In any event, I'm left with the rejoinder. Is marrying young and with a poor understanding of what lifelong commitment requires preferable to never marrying? If so, why?

Ritmo...IMO marrying is always a wild experiment at age 18 to 23, and there is no training available. The Idea of Safe People is the best advice that can be given. Some people are safe for you and some are not safe. That takes several months intense learning about someone, and a self knowledge of what is truly good and what only feels familiar to someone psychologically abused by their family. It is a great question.

Really Shouting Thomas you are showing out hatred yourself to the point of becoming boring. Nobody else goes off like that on internet threads. Can't we discuss football or baseball with you? My teams are all losers this season compared to our hopes for them: The Braves, The Falcons, The Yellow Jackets and the Bulldogs. But sort of by luck I have been following the Wisconsin Badgers so I have a winner to root for too. Their QB Scot Tolzien is an NFL quality player, as is their DE J.J. Watts. I hope the Falcons draft one or both of them. My son keeps us all into unbeaten TCU excitement, having many loyal friends from Texas Christian to this day. Buy how the mighty Yankees have fallen. Sorry Trooper,but wait until Steinbrenner buys the Ranger's players next year.

It is such an easy argument to accuse your political opponents of being evil and hateful, as though they go home at night make special prayers for the destruction of humanity. What a lame argument. It's so easy to make a pop-psychology analysis and come to the conclusion that your opponents are bad, hateful people--and that is the only explanation for their positions. Conservatives should know better, having been on the brunt of such shoddy thinking so many times in the past.

O'Rourke is full of coke. Dumbest article I have ever read by him and I have been reading his stuff since the mid 70's. Republican politicians are also just as power hungry. They all just want to get reelected.

Both sides have plenty of haters, imo. And both have kind people. Both sides' haters want to tell everyone how to live their lives. They are in so many ways mirror images of each other - shadow dancing, projecting and, yes hating.

That said, I love this:

: 'Not an election, a restraining order'

Such a great point. The dems absolutely need to be restrained. They can't or won't do it on their own. And they need to *have* to deal with the pubbies. They have been so arrogant and dismissive - as if half the country shouldn't make a peep. Those of us who don't want more government, don't want a healthcare mandate, don't want to borrow and spend in the trillions were pretty much told: we won so just shut up and accept what we're doing Pelosi even changed the locks so the pubbies couldn't present any ideas on healthcare. That's been the attitude, it seems to me, of the left. We won, you lost, we're going to ignore and dismiss you

Also, I note how often we use conservative and GOP interchangeably, and liberal and Democrat interchangeably. I consider myself a liberal, but I am not a Democrat. Like many of you conservatives who object to much of the GOP party politics and behavior in office, I find myself wanting to see a liberal party emerge to challenge the Democratic power structure. Not a far-left wingnut Green party, to be sure.

"One thing I should love, is being lectured to on hate and love by the party"

You think your being lectured by a party? You know he is one person, right? If you knew anything about him, you would know he is far from being a social conservative. Lumping all conservatives as Right Wing social conservatives is not only stupid, but alienates a lot of people who actually agree with you on SOME issues.

Really, Chip? I'd like to believe you, but my gut says that if you brought up the name of Sarah Palin to any of your "democrats who are lovely and not motivated by hate," every one of them would turn into a screaming spittle-flecked rageaholic in under ten seconds.

I'd put this down as a rare miss for O'Rourke. If the last ten years of elections has told us anything, it's that the only two differences between a Republican and Democrat is spelling and talking points.

Look at how many people are confused as to where the Bush admin ended and the Obama admin began. Look at the amount of policy carry-over from one admin to the next.

Both parties want Big Government, which in fairness represents the sad fact that the majority of Americans want Big Government: they just want the kind of Big Government that will leave them alone while harassing everybody else on their behalf.

(The Tea Party movement seemed fairly hopeful until it was hijacked by social conservatives and the same old talking points.)

A pox on all their houses. And a pox on O'Rourke for getting old in his old age.